resolve_transcribe_audio

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden and does so well. It reveals the actual return type (status, not transcript), explains the empty-parameter edge cases, notes the Resolve 21 requirement, and flags speaker detection as optional.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Three tightly packed sentences with no filler. The most important behavioral distinction (status vs transcript) is front-loaded, followed by parameter edge cases and the version prerequisite.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the core call semantics: what it does, how parameters behave, what it returns, and a version prerequisite. It doesn't explain how to retrieve the actual transcript afterward or whether transcription runs asynchronously, but for a 3-parameter optional tool the description is largely complete.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It successfully explains folder_path semantics ('exact resource path', empty = current bin), clip_name's role in selecting between clip and folder mode, and that use_speaker_detection is optional. It doesn't fully define clip_name, but the meaning is largely inferable.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states a clear action ('Transcribe one exact clip, or a folder AND nested folders') and a concrete resource scope. It also differentiates the tool from related siblings like resolve_get_transcript by explicitly noting it returns operation status, not a transcript.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description gives clear usage context: use a folder when clip_name is empty, pass an exact folder_path, or leave it empty for the current bin. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives or exclusion conditions, but the distinction from transcript retrieval is implicit and actionable.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.